BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 469
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 469 (Vargas)
As Amended May 10, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :21-14
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 5-3 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Skinner, Bradford, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Campos, Davis, Hueso | |Bradford, Charles |
| | | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Smyth, Knight, Norby |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires a city or county to prepare economic impact
reports before it approves or disapproves the construction or
conversion of superstore retailers. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires a city, county, or city and county (city or county)
to prepare an economic impact report prior to approving or
disapproving a permit for the construction or conversion of a
superstore retailer.
2)Defines "superstore" as a business establishment that exceeds
90,000 square feet of gross floor area, sells a wide range of
consumer goods, and devotes 10% of the sales floor area to the
sale of items that are exempted from the Sales and Use Tax
Law.
3)Specifies that the term "superstore" shall include retail
establishments with multiple tenants under the same roof.
4)Specifies that the term "superstore" excludes discount
warehouses and discount retail stores that sell more than half
of their items in large quantities or bulk, and also requires
shoppers to pay a membership or assessment fee.
SB 469
Page 2
5)Utilizes an existing statutory definition of "market area"
which states that an area that is recognized in the trade
literature as large enough to support a specific big box
retailer, but is no more than 25 miles from another big box
retailer.
6)Authorizes a city or county to prepare the economic impact
report themselves or contract with a private entity, other
than the permit applicant, or with another public agency for
the preparation of the report.
7)Requires the applicant for the development project to pay for
the costs of preparing the economic impact report.
8)Requires the economic impact report include all of the
following:
a) An assessment of the extent to which the proposed
superstore retailer will capture a share of retail sales in
the market area;
b) An assessment of how the construction and operation of
the proposed superstore will affect the supply and demand
for retail space in the market area; and,
c) An assessment of how the construction and operation of
the proposed superstore will affect employment in the
market area, including all of the following:
i) The number of persons employed in existing retail
stores in the market area;
ii) An estimate of the number of people who will likely
be employed by the proposed superstore;
iii) An analysis of whether the proposed superstore will
result in a net increase or decrease in employment in the
market area;
iv) The effect on wages and benefits of employees of
other retail businesses, and community income levels in
the market area;
v) A projection of the costs of public services and
SB 469
Page 3
public facilities resulting from the construction and
operation of the proposed superstore retailer and the
incidence of those costs;
vi) A projection of the public revenues resulting from
the construction and operation of the proposed superstore
retailer and the incidence of those revenues;
vii) An assessment of the effect that the construction
and operation of the proposed superstore retailer will
have on retail operations, including grocery or retail
shopping centers, in the same market area;
viii) An assessment of the effect that the construction
and operation of the proposed superstore will have on the
ability of the city or county to implement the goals
contained in its general plan;
ix) An assessment of the effect that the construction
and operation of the proposed superstore will have on
average total vehicle miles traveled by retail customers
in the same market area;
x) An assessment of the potential for long-term vacancy
of the property on which the superstore is proposed in
the event that the business vacates the premises;
xi) An assessment of whether the superstore would
require the demolition of housing or any other action or
change that would result in a decrease or negative impact
on the creation of extremely low, very low-, low-, or
moderate-income housing;
xii) An assessment of whether the superstore would result
in the destruction or demolition of park or other green
space, playgrounds, child care facilities, or community
centers;
xiii) An assessment of whether the superstore would result
in any other adverse or positive economic impacts or
blight; and,
xiv) An assessment of whether any measures are available
that may mitigate any materially adverse economic impacts
SB 469
Page 4
identified by the applicant.
9)Specifies that nothing in this measure precludes a city or
county from conducting additional studies of the effects of
the construction and operation of a proposed superstore
retailer.
10)Requires city and county governing bodies to provide the
opportunity for public comment on the economic impact reports
and their findings at regularly scheduled meetings after the
reports' completion but 30 days before issuing any
entitlements.
11)Requires a lead agency, under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), to approve or disapprove a project within
180 days from the date of certification of an environmental
impact report and approval of an economic impact report, or
within 60 days from the date of adoption of a negative
declaration and approval of an economic impact report or the
determination by the lead agency that the project is exempt
from CEQA and approval of an economic impact report.
12)Makes findings and declarations that the measure applies to
charter cities and charter counties because the effects of
superstore retailers are a matter of statewide concern that
extend beyond local boundaries.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires, under the Permit Streamlining Act, each state agency
and local agency to compile one or more lists that specify in
detail the information that will be required from any
applicant for a development project, and requires a public
agency that is the lead agency for a development project, or a
public agency which is a responsible agency for a development
project that has been approved by the lead agency, to approve
or disapprove the project within applicable periods of time.
2)Prohibits a local agency from providing any form of financial
assistance to a vehicle dealer or big box retailer, or a
business entity that sells or leases land to a vehicle dealer
or big box retailer, that is relocating from the territorial
jurisdiction of one local agency to the territorial
jurisdiction of another local agency but within the same
SB 469
Page 5
market area.
3)Requires, under CEQA, lead agencies with the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed
discretionary project to prepare a negative declaration,
mitigated declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR)
for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA
includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical
exemptions in the CEQA guidelines).
4)Requires each planning agency to prepare and the legislative
body of each county and city adopt a comprehensive, long-term
general plan for the physical development of the county or
city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the
planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, by requiring cities and counties to prepare economic
impact reports on superstore projects, this bill creates a new
state mandate. The bill disclaims the state's responsibility
for reimbursing local government, citing local officials'
ability to charge processing fees that will offset their costs.
If the local charges for the new economic impact reports do not
exceed the reasonable costs of preparing and using those
reports, those charges will be permissible local fees that can
be adopted without a vote of the electorate.
COMMENTS : According to the author, this measure "offers the
public and local policymakers an opportunity to learn about the
potential impacts of a superstore on other retail options in the
area, as well as effects on housing, parks, traffic and jobs.
The heart of the concept stems from proactive recommendations by
a superstore company's (Wal-Mart) representative as a
compromise to an ordinance in Los Angeles between an outright
ban and no thoughtful oversight."
The author states that the "goal of this bill is to create
financial accountability and the transparency that local
communities need to make land use decisions about the impact
giant supercenters have on existing businesses, jobs, public
services and neighborhoods. Small and neighborhood businesses
are important financial elements to every local economy and
function as the backbone to these economies. It's important to
inform the public about the consequence that these superstores
SB 469
Page 6
pose on small and neighborhood businesses before a superstore
developer comes into a community and potentially imposes a risk
to the local neighborhoods."
This bill creates an economic impact report, not entirely
dissimilar to the environmental impact report required by CEQA
that local governments must prepare before approving or
disapproving a development project that includes a superstore
retailer. A superstore retailer is defined as a store greater
than 90,000 square feet of gross floor area that sells a wide
range of consumer goods, and devotes 10% of the sales floor area
to the sale of items that are exempted from the Sales and Use
Tax Law. The project applicant will pay for the report. This
bill creates the framework and sets forth the assessments and
projections that must be part of any report, but allows local
governments to include any other factors they see fit. On the
other hand, unlike CEQA, it creates no requirement that a local
government base or condition its decision to approve or
disapprove the project on the results of the economic impact
report. The purpose of the report appears to be to allow local
governments to make more informed land use decisions about
superstore retailers.
SB 1056 (Alarcón), which was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger
in 2004, would have required a city, county, or city and county
to prepare an economic impact report prior to approving or
disapproving a proposed development project that would permit
the construction of a superstore retailer, defined as a store
greater than 130,000 square feet of gross buildable area that
generates sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform
Local Sales and Use Tax that contains more than 20,000
stockkeeping units, and derives 10% of its total sales from the
sale of non-taxable merchandise.
SB 1523 (Alarcon) of 2006 similarly required an economic impact
report to be prepared prior to a city's or county's approval or
disapproval of a superstore retailer with greater than 100,000
square feet of, and was again vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
Support arguments: Supporters, including the American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, state that
"SB 469 does not limit local control; it empowers local
governments to make the best decisions for their own
constituents?.There is no down side to increased information and
SB 469
Page 7
well-informed decision making."
Opposition arguments: Opponents, including the California
Chamber of Commerce, argues that "SB 469 takes away the power of
a community to build itself and is a heavy handed mandate on
local government." Opponents also believe that the bill creates
another layer of bureaucracy to local governments making it more
difficult to bring new jobs.
Analysis Prepared by : Katie Kolitsos / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN: 0002202